Well, you’ve said it now, if you didn’t say it before!!! So I guess I was correct about what you were advocating all along.

The only thing that challenges a theory really, is experimental evidence that shows that its predictions are not valid. In Climate Science this is actually a very difficult thing. I cannot disprove the theory that “It’s the Sun” … because the predictions both theories make are extremely similar. The “It’s the Sun” theory does not completely explain several issues relating to CO2 but incompleteness does not invalidate a theory.

What will do it will be time. CO2 theory, which is almost the same as AGW (though AGW contains issues around Albedo and other effects of people, the bulk of the explanation is Greenhouse), expects that the rising CO2 and Greenhouse will continue to force temperatures higher. Some Solar influence theorists are banking on a decline based on some form of decreased insolation. Others however are also predicting continued increases. Most immediately I expect to see the predictions of declining temps go by the wayside. From there we will (hopefully) see some declines in CO2 which should be followed (at some 30 years temporal distance) by declining temperatures.

The problem with disproving anything in Climate Science has to do with the interconnections between all the different forcing factors. There are almost always alternative explanations available.

If the CO2 continues going up but the temperatures start going down, that’d be a big hit against AGW, but the alternative of adding sufficient aerosols and albedo shifts in the process of burning some alternative fuels would have to be considered as well.

The thing is, the only way to PROVE anything is to do the experiment - with the whole damned planet, and we don’t have a control for the experiment and we don’t have another one to go to after the environment here “goes South”. Eventually our children will know. Me, I just have to look at the theories and mostly I judge by completeness in the absence of absolute failures of prediction.

Which is why the issue is so rancorous. There really is no PROOF that can be used, of anything, but the potential consequences of error are pretty severe for everyone. It isn’t like Engineering, the bridge stands the load or it fails and we know the reasons. There’s too many inputs and not enough data. Can’t really be sure of temperatures more than a thousand years ago.

The things that affect my judgement of which theory to believe most likely are

Completeness. CO2 theory predicts a certain amount of temperature rise, which is apparent in our measurements of the planet to date. Inconveniently the effects lag the introduction of the CO2 by decades… so bulk changes in temperature owing to current CO2 levels show up in the future. CO2 theory explains itself as well… in the sense that the rapid measured increase in global CO2 has an Anthropogenic source. “Rapid” comes from the measurements that show that it is rising 50 TIMES as fast as it has ever risen in any previous similar period. This is “pretty good” data in that it is taken from entrained gases in the ice cores.

Solar theory does not explain the increased CO2, ignores the physics and the models that indicate that there should be a temperature rise from that increase and attributes everything to some subtle or not so subtle changes in solar input. Some of it is plausible, but on balance it leaves off from explaining some things, and the data suggesting such a large fluctuation in the solar input to the planetary thermal balance is thin.

The other thing is Consequences.

Asserting that AGW is wrong and the efforts made to restrain CO2 emissions are wasted, the cost of that waste is a quantifiable but liveable alternative for human civilization even though some people will die.

Asserting that AGW is correct and yet no meaningful restraint of CO2 emissions occurs leads us to scenarios where human civilization may not on a global scale even survive, and in which a vast number of people will die.

That’s my reasoning on the topic…. my time is up. I have to go again.

respectfully
BJ

When he came in to power, he took 19 billion off us in tax each year.

Now he takes 30 billion MORE. Not 30 billion total - 30 billion MORE.

Government spending has gone up massively - what used to keep the country going for more than 30 months now gets spent in 12.

And what does an additional $30,000,000,000.00 buy?

No additional operations, few additional police, fewer benefits, no major infrastructure.

Where does he blow the additional $30,000,000,000.00 or and ADDITIONAL 1 1/2 years spending per year? I can’t see any great difference.

If we want to stop inflation and tthe high dollar in this country, we don’t need to stop spending - we just need to stop ONE PERSON spending.

Perhaps we could all go back to 1999 spending and 1999 tax rates, divy up the $30b and get $7500 for each man, woman and child, or $15,000 back for each worker - work it out. That’s how much additional tax is being paid in this country compared to when Labour came in.

How about commenting on what I actually said?, nowhere did I advocate private health insurance for all, I merely said that if you gave a tax cut to those in the middle classes then they could chose to take out private health care, this would greatly ease the burden on the public health sector.

I notice that once again you had not put forward any other plan, I can then only assume that you are happy with the current performance of the health sector in NZ, remember this is the same sector that has had four billion poured into it yet it still manges to perform LESS operations per year.

The incoming National govt could greatly improve the efficiency of the health departments overnight, all they would have to do is fire 90% of the administrators hired by this Labour govt, I am sure you will agree that we need to make the public health sector far more efficient.

Personally I believe that the govt has no place being involved in the heath sector, I would far rather that they contracted out all health services or gave Kiwis a tax credit for private health insurance.

It isn’t out of control. For the most part, it is correctly valued. The problem is that wages haven’t kept up.

CGT won’t solve the price and supply issues, they’ll simply make matters worse. As I property investor myself, I couldn’t care less about CGT because property is something I buy, not sell. The tenants pay whatever the property costs to run + profit.

The only way out of this loop is to increase supply, which means freeing up more land for development, or converting a lot of the existing property stock to medium/high density.

May I ask: what would it take to change your mind? That is, what information would I have to provide you with in order for you to decide that anthropogenic global warming is an invalid theory?

Remove accomodation costs from the CPI “shopping basket” and inflation almost disappears.

The reason accomodation costs are rising fast enough to create the false impression of “general inflationary pressures” is because middle income New Zealanders are competing to buy rental property.

They are doing this to claw back the money that Cullen has been taking from them. They claw this money back through both tax right-offs and through the accommodation allowance, which virtually makes it a government gauranteed investment. To complete this “virtuous circle” the accomodation allowance is indexed to inflation whereas tax brackets ae not.

Increasing interest rates further increases accomodation costs and makes the dollar ever more attractive.